ORDER

Per Laliet Kumar, JM:

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.01.2019, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 01 (‘Pr.CIT’) exercising revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2013-14.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. That the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Amritsar u/s. 263 is against the facts of the case and is untenable under the law.

2. That no reasonable opportunity of being heard was allowed by the Assessing Officer before passing the said order. As such, the order passed is bad in law and is liable to be cancelled.

3. That this case does not fall within the mischief of section 263. As such the order is bad in law and the same is liable to be cancelled.

4. That the order was passed hurriedly without applying the mind and without appreciating the facts of the case as the same was going to be barred by time.

As such, the order passed is bad in law and is liable to be cancelled.

5. That the Pr CIT cannot assume jurisdiction u/s. 263 for making roving enquiry on the issues which are already enquired by the Assessing Officer, however, not expressly discussed in the assessment order passed.

6. That the Pr. CIT did not appreciate that the assessment order was passed after making through enquiries and after filing the necessary information as desired and required from time to time. It is pertinent to point out that this was a cases of tax audit. The case of the assessee was taken up several time and queries were raised and were duly complied. The Assessing Officer after considering all the facts and material and after making all the enquiries allowed deduction u/s. 80IB of the IT Act, 1961. As such the reopening by invoking the provisions of section 263 is not all justified and as such the order by the Pr. CIT is liable to be cancelled.

7. That the Ld. C.I.T. has grossly erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 in spite of the fact that all the facts and material were duly discussed and considered by the AO during the course of assessment proceeding . Because the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax takes a different view should not be made the basis for invoking the provisions of section 263. As such the CIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263.

8. That any other ground of appeal which may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.

Background Facts

1. The appellant is a private limited company, engaged in the business of processing, preservation and packaging of fruits and its derivatives etc.

2. In order to pursue its main object, the appellant established an industrial undertaking at Industrial Sector, Kundli, Distt. Sonepat for processing, preservation and packaging of fruits, derivatives etc. The said undertaking commenced business operations on 11.06.2011 and accordingly was eligible for deduction in terms of section 80IB(11A) of the Act from the assessment year 2012-13 onwards.

3. In the aforesaid undertaking, the appellant had created significant infrastructure for processing, preservation and packaging of fruits, mainly Badam, GiriBadam, Abjosh, Kaju, Kishmish, Pista etc.

4. During the previous year relevant to assessment year 2013-14, the appellant filed its return of income declaring income of Rs.20,860 under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and book profits of Rs.4,07,68,168 under section 115JB of the Act. The tax was paid by the appellant company under section 115JB of the Act on book profits.

5. In the said return of income, the appellant claimed deduction amounting to Rs.3,51,25,451 under section 80-IB(11A) of the Act in respect of its profits derived exclusively from the business of processing, preservation and packaging of fruits, mainly Badam, GiriBadam. A copy of the Audit Report in Form 10CCB is enclosed herewith which is available on Page No.102 to 106 of the paper- book.

6. The case of the appellant was